Satan 2, russia's new nuclear missile: 40 000 kiloton

So that's 40 megaton, I was just using the kiloton measure because the bomb dropped on hiroshima was 15 kiloton. So this bomb is more than 2000 times as powerfull and could simply wipe out a state like texas or a country like the uk.

The RS-28 Sarmat missile, dubbed Satan 2 by Nato, has a top speed of 4.3 miles (7km) per second and has been designed to outfox anti-missile shield systems. I has a range of 10000 km (6,213 miles)

The weapon can also evade radar

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3870192/Russia-unveils-image-terrifying-Satan-2-missile-Super-nuke-destroy-area-size-FRANCE.html

If Hillary is elected, it will probably be used soon.

We surpassed that payload in the 60s.

If Trump is elected, Putin may let him pick the first target.

they did, I don't know a lot about this but this rocket seemed like big news.

I'm guessing the big deal made over it is this portion of your article:

"The weapons are perceived as part of an increasingly aggressive Russia"

They've had bigger megaton bombs for decades. However, its not really a feasible weapon. Most missiles carry payloads in the kiloton range since it makes them more compact and versatile for delivery. Secondly, what city or target couldn't be obliterated with a smaller payload? And lastly, these things will never be used to its pointless.

Isn't the tsar bomba 50 megatons, with a theoretical USSR nuke that goes up to 100 megatons?

I guess that the difference is that it's a nuclear warhead on a missile?

That's nearly up there with their downscaled 50 megaton Czar Bomba, downscaled for testing but originally designed at 100 megatons.

I'm very curious the spectrum of destruction in the current Russian nuclear arsenal, I mean I'm aware of bomb sizes but curious about their prevalence what what kids of bombs will be applied to what targets.

Anyhow, curious what a device will do this in your city, check out the site Nuke Map, just checking what a simulation of a 100 megaton Czar Bomba would do if airburst over lower Manhattan, it'd kill over 8 million and injury another 6.6 million more, the fireball would swallow up nearly half of Manhattan Island and an airblast of 5 psi would have a 32 kilometer radius (according to CDC that would destroy nearly every building - see CDC guide on air pressure blasts). Go ahead though, plug in any city, enter whatever bomb size you want to simulate, don't forget to select airburst, see what would happens.

@lamprey263: i think the worst thing about this rocket is that i can't be intercepted. At least that's what the article says.

I did some more research , the tsar bomba was dropped from a plane, and this is indeed a nuclear warhead on a missile. It can also evade radar and anti missile shield systems, and has a range of 10000 km (6, 213 miles) So I think that is what the news is about.

I updated the op , this info is also in the article.

Shit just got real.

Actually, I followed the tensions between US and Russia ever since the GWB pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile test ban treaty. I'm not even convinced they'd work regardless (our anti-ballistic missile shield that is), but Russia about a decade ago at least already was announcing that they were developing re-entry vehicles with the maneuvering capabilities and precision of a cruise missiles. I think it's the idea that our missile shield is so worthless intercepting that it's only real purpose is for offensive capabilities, and on that end I can see why they're uneasy about it, I mean it's like the Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids, at least as far as they see it. I don't think that's really why we wanted it though. I really don't like Russia or Vladimir Putin at all, but this is one area we really need to deescalate the missile defense shield. I only feel we did this in the first place to boost military spending to the contractors that lobbied for it, under the guise of combating rogue state nukes like those potentially from North Korea or Iran. No, we need to stick to our commitment to working with Russia to disarm our nuclear arsenals. Phat chance though, if Russia loses Syria, where their only naval base in the region lies, they're probably going to be too paranoid to want to give up their nukes.

@lamprey263: doesn't the anti missile shield system work by sattelites

Also, I don't think it would that good to bring down the nuclear arsenal, what will you do if we have other countries that attack nato besides russia, china for instance, india , pakistan, there are a lot of countries that have nuclear capabilities right now.

Not to mention they could be of use for other stuff , space travel , deflection or destruction of asteroids and this might sound silly but you never know. What if we get invaded by aliens.

We're still keeping a sizable arsenal of nuclear weapons but supposed to work with Russia long term to decrease those numbers, and I imagine that any disarmament that included getting rid of them completely would lead to us working with them to get other states to give theirs up as well.

If we have to worry about asteroids, I'm sure we can deal with that when it comes to it. Aliens? Come on now, I'm less worried about that than I am about human civilization being wiped from the earth.

Guys, relax. We got this!

if russia launches this, we will respond in kind and launch our own. It will be MAD--mutually assured destruction. The crazy thing about nukes besides the massive life loss is that the land would become uninhabitable and of course the economy completely crippled. There would be very few places left to live in.

Seriously though, if some beings that have the technology to accomplish interstellar space travel come to our planet with hostile intentions, we're not solving the problem with some bombs based on tech from the 1950s.

Scary.

I wonder if the US is still dropping big nukes from B-52's.

@commander: as far as missile defense shield goes, those intercepting missiles have a very low height limit that they'd have to be fired as the target missiles are taking off. I'm guessing you're saying this ballistic missile has an escape velocity I imagine the intercepting missile can't keep pace with. Even with other missiles though the time to react is merely a few seconds. Not to mention if they were to work they'd have to destroy the missile before detonation over their target, considering the response time is so narrow that's hardly enough time to identify and respond, all tests to date that have been succesful are under staged conditions where everyone knows what's happening and where ahead of time, there's no scenario where we'd be able to use this in real world with uncertainty and unpredictability. Considering each missile is like $25 million each, there's going to need to be some certainty before firing them. Even worse is Russia's ICBMs bring with them lots of debris and that blocks our ability to track warheads, we'd have to waste a handful of missiles just to knock out one nuke in an ideal situation. Furthermore I'm sure any EMP that would detonate in upper atmosphere before any ground bombs might screw up electronics even on the defense side so there could be issues there, not to mention could interfere with satellite communications. In short, the missile defense shield should not be used or relied upon. I think those still pursuing it do so thinking it'll one day work, if we just put more money into it. I say it's a waste and the more money we put into it we bring ourselves closer to a nuclear war that we can't defend ourselves from.

@mattbbpl:

Well if the Covenant or Godzilla invade, we can use it -- other than that I don't see the use

@lamprey263: Russia has a thing or two to learn about saber rattling. Maybe Putin and Trump can interlock to....

Nevermind. We're not pursing that thought any further.

Right, that's why she is the one building it, and is the world leader that seems so damn determined to restart and ignite a second Cold War. Oh wait that's Ol' Putang Putin.

I don't think Putin is determined to start a war. So far he's just been playing it safe and being aggressive in circumstances he knows he can get away with. Europe or the US isn't going to go to war over Eastern Ukraine. They might for the entire country, and that's why Putin stopped there. Likewise, the west isn't going to start a war over Georgia or Syria. Putin isn't that stupid, he knows a war with NATO is a war he cannot possibly win.

Fair enough, and you are probably right. I Just see Russia and Putin and they act and look like a country with nothing to lose, and those are generally the more dangerous of countries. People with nothing to lose are the ones that end up blowing themselves up, fighting for territory, etc...people with things to lose may fight, but are generally quicker to go "Woh woh woh hold on a second, let's talk"

US and the West is far from blameless, but that doesn't necessarily give everyone else gets a free pass. Obviously I am biased but if one superpower is going to take over I'd rather it be a Western one, at least they try to avoid the human right's violations.

Instead of hording weapons that can level the earth flat, how about some free energy.

ok the alien thing may be a bit far fetched but it still remains a possibility. The asteroids however are a ver real threat and what are you going to do if an asteroid the size of texas is coming are way, I think we can use all the nukes we can get at that time, or you going to land on it armageddon style?

@commander: in the event of a asteroid/comet we should still have capacity to produce bombs, nukes are kind of not that effective with regard to asteroids, on earth they do a lot of damage because of what they do in atmosphere, in space they'll just create a lot of hot light

the best defense against an asteroid would be to detect it early because the earlier that happens the sooner they can set it off course with less need for greater use of force, one idea for smaller threats is simply to send a satellite in orbit around the object so that the mutual gravitational attraction has a bigger impact on its future trajectory to the point it'll miss us

comets might be easier to deal with, they're a lot of ice and maybe a nuke there might stand a chance at deflecting it better if they can bury the nuke, maybe it'd create enough expanding gases to change its trajectory

it's too bad the money that unnecessarily bloats the military industrial complex can't go to push futuristic sciences, NASAs budget to date doesn't even surpass how much we spend on the military in a given year

I guess, if Russia doesn't mind being reduced to glowing rubble by about 500 sub launched Tridents.

You're stupid...

Satan 2 also known as "Putin's middle finger to the US."

Wow. With all the time and resources we spend on creating things that can DESTROY the planet, we sure spend very little trying to create things that can save it equal in magnitude to objects like that bomb. And we really want to colonize a different planet? LOL.....

Humans are evil. Do you blame aliens for hiding from us. We are a threat to any type of life form, even to ourselves.

I didn't say that Russia would simply launch an attack if Hillary won, or suggest that Russia could use the missile against the US without incurring a devastating counterattack.

I simply suggested that a Hillary victory would increase the likelihood of a sequence of events that could lead to the missile's use.

And the Russians themselves have said as much.

So that pact with Russia stating we would each reduce the number of nukes was all for nothing then.

Yes because of the two candidates, Hillary is clearly the most wild, reckless, and unpredictable one. That was sarcasm by the way, trump went on a rant because someone said his hands were small.

oh no